RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

We have the same rights



Toolbox

Published: March 29, 2009

No doubt, many others share my gratitude to Aaron Melville for explaining in such detail that a peanut butter and jelly sandwich must contain both peanut butter and jelly, and that if it does not it is still a sandwich, but is not a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. We have all grasped that now. He goes on to say that, "In Vermont, all sandwiches have the same rights as the others. We can choose which sandwich we want to partake of." So why doesn't he see that in Vermont, all long-term, committed relationships between two consenting adults — known as "marriages" — should have the same rights?

Connie Brown

Montpelier








READER COMMENTS


Very true. Uneducated people with faith are very naive. They are easily manipulated.

Education and Faith in yourself. > Faith in Religion!
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 9:05 am EST

report this comment


The line "Keep religion out of our Government" is probably just worded incorrectly.

Many of the moral teachings of religion is good and has helped us achieve our level of civilization today. Many stories are lies, fiction, and scare tactics to keep people living the way they feel they should ideally live.

Many of our founding fathers had faith. Many of the people coming to America were running from RELIGIOUS persecution. They wanted to be able to practice what they believed without being scrutinized or forced to believe in something else.

Over the years many people were practicing basic forms of religion. During these times, the 1 God/Jesus religion, was pretty much the only one practiced on this land. This was back in the day when these documents were written.

These great men realized and dreamed of a better future. And they layed down groundwork to enforce law without religious persecution. Because our forefathers recognized the good and the bad from religion.

Many different forms of religion are practiced in USA. And many variations of basic forms are practiced. Religion is constantly changing to keep its followers. Like any business, they know they must change to keep the people coming. If they keep the people coming and get a greater number of people coming.

The more people = The more power = The more money!

You can have faith and morality without practicing every statement in the bible and every rule of a single religion.

Many educated people have realized the corruption in the INSTITUTION OF RELIGION. And they know they don't need to go to church to be accepted in the eyes of the lord.

America, today, has many different people with many different relgions. To continually judge or try to rule the land with morality from religion is wrong. It ruins the whole idea of America. If our forefathers thought everything about their religion was perfect. Our laws would be very different. They knew the truth years ago. Why can some people, even with todays education, still have the incompacity to understand the truth?

Moral Fiber? Religion is all good?

Some people are fine by cheating, stealing, lieing, killing, mass killing, greed, and hatred. Just look at the very INSTITUTION OF RELIGION. They have no problem doing this when it fits their needs.

Anyone can pick up a history book and read TRUTH about religion. Truth is.. They do judge people. They do kill people that made them feel insecure. They have written lies trying to stop behaviour that makes them feel insecure. They have killed millions of people in the name of their faith. They were the JUDGE, JURY, AND EXECUTIONER. BLOOD-MONEY WAS SPENT TO HIRE PEOPLE, TO KILL PEOPLE!

At some point in your life. You have to look at the FACTS about your own beloved religion. If you can simply write these issues off as .... "Done by man. It's ok".... Something is wrong with that. The bible itself and every word was written by man. The institution itself is protected by its own words, written by man. They do not need to take any responsibility for their own actions. A man can stand up and take responsibility and they take the punishment. Not the institution itself which throughout history has ordered these occurrences but has not taken responsibility for it.

The institution of religion has made a lot of money. They have a lot of power. They have the best business on earth. They are NOT responsible for their own actions.

Thankfully, every year they lose people and are slowly losing power.

Reality...

Imagine if a business today had this power. They could dump chemical waste everyday and never take responsibility for it. They could conduct mass killings on a regular basis and never take responsibility for it.

Now ask yourself... If a new religion were to form. And performed any of the mass killings christianity is responsible for. Would the people be ok with it or would they want the institution and people punished for it?

Terrorism answers this question! We send our troops into the heart of these area's and many people die. We are willing to kill innocent people to get those responsible.

Yet, you still think your beloved religion has made no mistake? The Terrorists feel the same way. They are only living/dieing by what they believe in. It is a misteaching of THEIR FAITH!

Religion = Cult!
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 8:55 am EST

report this comment


"Keep your religion out of my government.

Besides our elected officials put their hands on bible to uphold the bible, they put their hand on the bible to uphold the constitution and there is a segment of the populations rights are being violated."

Maybe you should look up the word PURITAN and find out that the very founders of this country wanted a PURE religion and not a contaminated one, as what you would be doing by passing the gay Marriage Act.

Then when you finish looking up PURITAN then look up and read the "Mayflower Compact" which is a document written by the colonists about a month after settling in Plymouth, Mass. It is the the foundation of the Contitution that was written some 170 years later when this country was much older. Almost as much time was passed from the time of the Mayflower Compact, as has passed since the Constitution.

Now look at the Ten Commnadments and look and what is over the doorway to the U.S. Supreme Court. Then look at your money in your pocket.

Now tell me, what makes you think that Religion is going to leave Government? Pray it doesn't, because maybe Vermont has lost its morals and will accept the perverted lifestyles of gays as being OK, but the people do not buy it and the Majority of the United States does not believe it and that will force an Amendment to the Constitution declaring that Marriage is an act between one man and one woman as has happened in over 33 states already. Just 4 more states and that will be the 75% majority needed for a Ratification of a Bill to become an Amendment or actually an Article. When that happens your marriage will become VOID and Vermont will be a place of shame and place everyone will avoid. No one wanted to live in Bellows falls when the Gays took over the city and no one will want to live in Vermont and the state will become a place to avoid if you want to raise a decent family. Real Estate will suffer and tourism will drop. You wanted CHANGE and the man from kenya is giving it to you, you wanted Gay marriage, you may get it and it will come at a very high price to the Integerity of Vermont and to its moral reflection.

Vermont will have to change its, motto from the Green Mountain State to the Gay State. That should attract business.
-- Posted by None None on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 7:53 pm EST

report this comment


None None,

Keep your religion out of my government.

Besides our elected officials put their hands on bible to uphold the bible, they put their hand on the bible to uphold the constitution and there is a segment of the populations rights are being violated.
-- Posted by None None on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 6:48 pm EST

report this comment


HMMMM, Marrage as far as I can tell is a somewhat religious and mentioned in the bible, being gay is also in the bible and considered a sin. Not to mention just plain WRONG.
Go find another ultra-liberal state to persue your demented dreams.
-- Posted by None None on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 6:31 pm EST

report this comment


Some of the gays were claiming by passing the Gay Marriage Bill that it would bring revenue into Vermont, what is not being mentioned is how much revenue will leave the state because of it's Gay Position and Gay Population? How many people across the Nation have been cracking jokes about Vermont ever since C.U. Go ahead drive down south with your Vermont Plates, I have many times and I have heard many comments made about Vermont. Yup! the Gays are such a good attraction.

Sam
I sur edon't know what you have been drinking but I think you are missing the main point, Gay Marriage will destroy Traditional Marriage as well as make a statement that Vermont doesn't think that a Family needs to have a Mother and Father so if you think there was broken homes before, think of what Vermont will be promoting now. I am sure you are saying Who cares about the kids, they don't matter as long as the Gays get their way, to heck with the kids and the traditional family
None None one, me and my family are right behind you if this Bill passes.
-- Posted by None None on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 6:01 pm EST

report this comment


You bet, I for one am tired of paying taxes in a state that sanctions this type of behavior. This ship is sinking and I want off.

Did you realize that gays can't even donate blood. Thats the same supply they had a big part in contaminateing. Rules say that if they had sex with another male since 1977 makes them ineligible. Yet if they need a transfusion they have a right to your blood. Whers the justice in that.
-- Posted by NONENONE ONE on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 5:51 pm EST

report this comment


Even if VT falls, support this org.,http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.3836955/k.BEC6/Home.htm
-- Posted by NONENONE ONE on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 4:24 pm EST

report this comment


I'm taking my baseball glove and ball and I'm going home!

NONENONE ONE
-- Posted by None None on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 4:18 pm EST

report this comment


Well none none, you are so right in that I don't want to be a resident of this godforsaken state that I can hardly wait to leave. Just as soon as we can unload all this property on some other unknowing flatlander, were otta here. Has to be a flatlander as I know you can't afford it because we had to pay for your bus ride. You can keep your taxes and perversion filled legislature. I want to invest in a state that has a moral base, and it isn't VT. You don't have the only place with a view, but you do have the only one with a perverted view of morality and the gay issue is not the only factor. Don't worry about the door thing, we will be moving way to fast for that to happen. And just think of all those elections that will take place before we leave. Just hope the economy improves none none and your wish will happen. Lets see some of that gay money improve the economy. I can't wait.
-- Posted by NONENONE ONE on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 1:42 pm EST

report this comment


A mother being a mother and a father being a father have NOTHING to do with marriage. You aren't a father just because a piece of paper says that you are, it's the act of spending time with your kids, loving them that really makes them a parent. I know plenty of deadbeat dads that are technically still fathers but only because Uncle Sam says so. Two parents of the same gender, as long as they love and support the child, are still parents. People have grown up with two parents of the same gender and have fared very well. Who wouldn't want TWO dads to go play catch with instead of one, two moms to cook and clean and be nurturing?
Lesbians and gay men are the same except different genders. To say that one is acceptable and the other isn't not only doesn't make sense, its hypocritical.
-- Posted by Samuel Krans on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 11:51 am EST

report this comment


Since you don't live in Vermont NONENONE ONE let alone Rutland County I don't think this really matters.
-- Posted by None None on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 11:11 am EST

report this comment


Those will be the places I spend my money. They have my support, please hurry and post the list.
-- Posted by None None on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 11:10 am EST

report this comment


Give us the list now. I want to know where not to spend my $$$$ also. I support the list. I do not support your lifestyle and chose not to give you cash to fund your perversions. That list would be great.
-- Posted by NONENONE ONE on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 9:15 am EST

report this comment


NOTE: COMING SOON!!!

In the future I will be posting a link to businesses who DO NOT support gays, lesbians and their fight for marriage rights. This list will consist of Rutland County business who have actively lobbied AGAINST gay marriage, gays, lesbians, their families and friends of gays and lesbians.

This list will be very important so we, as a community know where to spend our dollars so we don't spend it at business who practice hatred and bigotry.

Please watch for an email link in these forums so you can send an email indicating a business in Rutland County who DO NOT SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE.

Thank you
-- Posted by None None on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 8:49 am EST

report this comment


So true Good None None, you hit the nail on the head! There like girl scout's wanting to be boy scout's, it just is'nt going to work, stick with your own troop, WE DON'T WANT YOU!
-- Posted by jeff leonard on Wed, Apr 1, 2009, 7:17 pm EST

report this comment


Concerned, take the wheels and tires off of one side of the car and start driving and see how far you will get with two of the same and none of the other.
Gays are like that, they are two of the same trying to do the same as what one of each can do. It would be like the vehicle with only left wheels and rims trying to compete with a vehicle that has both sides complete, all the while the vehicle is being claimed to be Equal and Normal and that they are the same. It is a joke to listen to the gays speak that garbage.

When a Man is attracted by another man, that is an indication there is something wrong and that all is not normal. Same holds true when a woman is attracted by a woman, but a woman attracted to woman is easier to understand because woman are born with much larger doses of compassion and love and motherly instincts. I can understand, but not excuse the lesbian lifestyle better than I can a Gay man sleeping with another gay man.
It isn't marriage you all want, it is acceptance of a deviant life style and you want to collect the benies.
The webiste made a few statements we all need to consider.

"And yet, throughout this debate on redefining marriage, the concerns over the rights of children have been ignored, especially the basic human right to a mother and a father.

Clearly, our gay and lesbian friends deserve dignity and respect, But it must be stressed that it is not bigotry to support and defend a legal and cultural institution which, by its nature, seeks to provide all children with a mother and father."

"In the final analysis, by adopting genderless marriage in Vermont, we would be legally saying that:

1) Men and women are completely interchangeable.

2) We should no longer strive for children to have both a mother and a father.

3) Those who believe this is unwise are bigots."

In case you forgot the site
http://www.vtmarriage.org/html/critics_answered.htm
-- Posted by None None on Wed, Apr 1, 2009, 4:59 pm EST

report this comment


Ok, I guess it'd be better to think the ketchup was "half-full", but the point was that each person is one-half of the marriage, not one half of a person, and that both components are equal.
-- Posted by concerned citizen on Wed, Apr 1, 2009, 4:16 pm EST

report this comment


Concerned, NO marriage should be entered into by half-empty anythings. One does not get married to gain what they are missing or looking for a crutch. One should bring all of themselves to a marriage, for only then can you give what you have to offer to the marriage.
-- Posted by Allen Kuusela on Wed, Apr 1, 2009, 2:53 pm EST

report this comment


I prefer a different analogy;
In restaurant terms, "marriage" is what it's called when you combine two half-empty bottles of ketchup. In the end, what matters is two halves equal one whole. What happened to men and women being considered equal? Different, but equal, same as heterosexual to gay/lesbian. Get off the sandwich analogy, that's first grader stuff.

http://www.webstaurantstore.com/tablecraft-k26-ketchup-saver-2-pk/208824.html
-- Posted by concerned citizen on Wed, Apr 1, 2009, 2:46 pm EST

report this comment


In December 2008 Kennedy stepped down from the Judiciary panel.

Kennedy spent several years on the Judiciary Committee.

"The Judiciary Committee is charged with conducting hearings prior to the Senate votes on whether to confirm or not confirm prospective federal judges (including Supreme Court justices) nominated by the president."

Where am I confused, Native Wallingfordian? This committee can allow a Good Ole Boy to be selected and a Great candidate to be by passed. They can stal for months as Leahy has done being the Chair of the Committe with Thomas.
-- Posted by None None on Wed, Apr 1, 2009, 2:34 pm EST

report this comment


As a gay man perhaps one day I will want to marry if I find a suitable partner and decide to settle down. Presently, I am having a simply marvelous time being single and unattached.

If the gay marriage bill does pass I will write to the Governor to ask him to PLLEASE! (pretty please with a cherry on top!) re-open all the rest areas and to put glory holes in every stall. I feel it is discriminatory to deprive those of us who favor this method of relations from our happiness.

I simply must tell though I have this fantasy virtually every week concerning a ********** and that delicious Peter Shumlin! Oooooh how I'd like to park my sub in Port Shumlin!
-- Posted by Gay in BF on Wed, Apr 1, 2009, 12:48 pm EST

report this comment


You seem a little confused about the Supreme Court nomination process.
-- Posted by Native Wallingfordian on Wed, Apr 1, 2009, 8:43 am EST

report this comment


To accept gays is progress or blindness to truth and moral right?
You need prove that gay is not a choice or a desease that can be treated and I have yet to see you do that. You make claims and the Vermont Supreme Court does not control the minds of the people. Remember when the Supreme Court Justices in Washington are selected by the likes of Ted Kennedy, their decisions have little or no impact on the true meaning of Law and Order.
Go preach your misguided and hopefull dreams to the gullible, for I am not interested in your rain dance.
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 10:15 pm EST

report this comment


You get hung up on a simple legality such as consent when you with the same mouth word your disfavor of Traditional and moral marriage? Why do you recognise consent as a barrier when all else seems so irrevelant to you?
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 10:09 pm EST

report this comment


Pedophiles marrying young children (who cannot offer consent) obviously has no relationship to a committed consensual relationship between two unrelated adults. It is a ludicrous argument. As for gayness being a "choice" and a "deviant lifestyle," that is your personal belief, one not shared by the VT Supreme Court, the overwhelming majority of VT's legislators, and younger generations (and enlightened older generations), who see nothing deviant about the idea of gay couples marrying. Much has changed in the past decades. Civil rights progress comes with setbacks, but the progress will continue.

Discriminatory propositions, like the one in CA, fortunately, do not exist in VT. They show how necessary equality is, and the struggle ahead. VT will be on the right side of this struggle. Even if Gov. Douglas's veto succeeds--which I hope it won't; it will be a very close vote--gay couples will one day soon be marrying in VT. Marriage has evolved over time and will continue to evolve to include committed gay couples. We may not have the majority in our favor everywhere now--majority opinion typically lags behind progress--but it is moving steadily in our favor and will continue to do so.
-- Posted by Ernest McLeod on Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 8:38 pm EST

report this comment


Obtaining a Driver's License is a Privilege.

If Gays win the Gay Marriage Act, then Pedophiles should also be given the right to marry the young children.

Being Gay is a choice and a choice that dictates a deviant lifestyle that does not flow along any parallel lines of the rest of Society. To alter the meaning of Marriage to fit this deviant life style is an ignorant act. I am Proud of Mr Douglas for sticking up to morals and principles in his statement. I will vote for all that side with Douglas and I will vote against anyone who supports Gay Marriage.
Over 30 other states have made amemdments to define marriage as an act between one man and one woman and over 30 states with more on the way is enough to Ratify a Amendment to the U.S. Contitution.

Below is pretty good proof the the majority does not agree with same sex marriage. Vermont may pass but when the ones who pass it are elected out of office, that law may be recinded as it is being done in Calif.

The Majority does not want it.

"Over half of the states have passed language defining marriage between a man and a woman in their state constitutions. Arizona is the only state where a constitutional amendment on the ballot in a general election has failed (2006). Typically, constitutional amendments have passed with an overwhelming majority."

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/samesex.htm
National Conference of State Legislatures
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 3:50 pm EST

report this comment


NONE NONE wrote:

"MARRIAGE IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHT, PERIOD. NOR IS IT A PRIVILEGE."

David Searles writes:

Perfectly correct sister. Obtaining or having a driers license is not a right, Marriage is not a privilege that one is entitled to, one must first obtain the consent of another person to marry. That is who marries, two mutually agreeing individuals with the capacity to enter into that solem agreement with another.

Something does not have to violate a right or a privilege in order for the legislature to recognize it as wrong, especially as it applies to state process. The Vermont legislature it appears is just about to make the historic determination that it sees the current exclusion of same sex couples from the recognition of their marriages as a profound wrong. I still hold out hope that the governor will not in fact attempt to thwart the two legislative houses in this recognition.
.
.
-- Posted by David Searles on Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 3:13 pm EST

report this comment


Brillant Jenna, just brillant.

Girls do not have a civil right to be a Boy Scout and boys do not have a Civil Right to be a Girl Scout, as does Gays do not have a right to Marriage.

What is so hard for you all to understand that? Marriage is not meant for Gays and never will be. This whole b.s. is about a Gay Movement and not about wanting to marry out of love or whatever. Vermont is being used as a stepping stone becuase of the pure ignorance of many of the people who reside here, this forum is filled with prime examples.
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 1:24 pm EST

report this comment


"A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places."

"The existence of civil rights and liberties are recognized internationally by numerous agreements and declarations. Often these rights are included in agreements in which nations pledge themselves to the general protection of Human Rights."

MARRIAGE IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHT, PERIOD. NOR IS IT A PRIVELEGE.
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 1:18 pm EST

report this comment


If you don't support gay marriage, don't get one.
-- Posted by Jenna Calvi on Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 12:50 pm EST

report this comment


I see Comfy ignored my question completely as to why gays insist on calling themselves married vs amending the civil union law to give them the rights they claim they are being deprived of. Just another pro-gay hypocrite who's put themselves on a "I'm better then tho" pedistal. An insteresting statistic from the Center for Disease Control, even though gays are a tiny percent of the population there were five times as many gays infected with HIV in 1997 as hetrosexuals. After Vermont is made a Mecca for gays is the state going to have to pony up to cover their medical cost? Is that one of the economic benefits we've heard about. You probably won't even see this question from up on your pedestal Comfy.
-- Posted by ex-vermonter None on Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 9:31 am EST

report this comment


the majority of the people still think that gay is a desease or a choice, both of which can be treated.
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 6:20 am EST

Where'd you pull this "fact" out of?
-- Posted by Native Wallingfordian on Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 8:10 am EST

report this comment


I'm fairly amazed at the folks here who make assertions about what the law and the Supreme Court say on certain issues, but manage to get it completely wrong.

A few examples:

1. " Your deviant behavior cannot be legislated into being accepted or normal. And its still illegal in this state."

- There is no statute in Vermont making homosexual behavior "illegal" in any way. The only law that was ever on the books even suggestive of this was a law adopted in 1937 that made "oral copulation" illegal (Act 211, 1937, VSA 2603). However, this law made no differentiation between same and opposite sex partners. The law was repealed in 1977. Unlike many states, Vermont has never adopted a "sodomy" law - so contention that this behavior is somehow "illegal" is completely false.

And, even if Vermont had ever enacted such a law, the US Supreme Court in 2003 in the Lawrence v. Texas case ruled that such laws were unconstitutional.

2. "...gays are not a "specific minority" as you assert. Again, the USSC has never declared homosexuality a "suspect class" entitled to special legal protections."

The US Supreme Court has, in fact, made the ruling precisely the opposite ruling, in the 1996 Romer v. Evans (overturning Colorado's "Amendment 2" which had forbade local jurisdictions in the state from enacting civil right protections for gays/lesbians.)

"To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint.....[Amendment 2] is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence....laws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected..."

3. "Marriage is more of a Religious Tradition than it is a Government and it most certainly is not a Right, no matter how you look at it. "

- Kevin Moss has already pointed out that the US Supreme Court did in fact specifically rule that marriage is a civil right in Loving v. Virginia. "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men" and "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man'"

The assertion that marriage is more religious than governmental tradition fails to make the clear legal decision between religious and civil marriage. While the religious rite of marriage is practiced by religious bodies (including a number that recognize same-sex marriages as part of their religious beliefs), that is distinct from the separate matter of "civil marriage." The government regulates marriage as a matter of civil law, and allows marriages performed by religious authorities to be recognized in the same manner as those performed by Justices of the Peace or other non-religious authorities.

4. " That it exactly what follows when you grant these rights...my 1st Amendment Rights will almost certainly be infringed..."

If this legislation is passed, no one's First Amendment rights will be infringed. The first amendment guarantees everyone's right to free speech and free religion - nothing in the legislation takes those away. People will continue to be free to speak out against gay marriages even if it is enacted (just as we are all free to speak out against any other law we do not like). The law provides very specific protections to ensure that no religious group or clergy person can be forced to perform a same sex marriage.

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion means that we are all free to practice those, not that our practice of those rights means we can impose our version on others. (For example, members of some religious groups may find the consumption of pork or alcohol to be contrary to their beliefs. Freedom of religion means they cannot be forced to consume those items, freedom of speech means they can speak out and campaign against those items --- but the fact that the government licenses the sale of those items is not a violation of anyone's freedom of religion or speech..)
-- Posted by Terje Anderson on Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 8:08 am EST

report this comment


That was an answer Comfy, but an answer you Gays do not want to accept.
You all run around stomping your feet and claiming you have these invisible rights, I would like to know what rights that is. Then I want you to tell me where I can find reference to this right and exactly what right you refer to.

I also find it odd that out of one corner of your mouths you all claim rights and out of the other corner of your mouths you bash the wars, you bash the military and you have never served and yet you claim rights at a drop of a hat. Nice to know you want to enjoy the harvest that so many others toil to til, plant and care for.

Vermont has been more than nice to you and when Vermont got Civil Unions, we got an infulux of gays and we didn't see millions of new dollars. I don't want any more gays moving here, thank you. Vermont need not be the dumping ground for people who refuse to believe they have a deviant lifestyle, but under some precieved idea that they have a right to be that way. We are now seeing what the results were by being kind to you gays, we see that with the all the new gays that have arrived here, suddenly C.U. isn't good enough and you all feel that if Vermont falls, then other states will follow and you all will have an endorsement to your deviant behaviors. You won't, the majority of the people still think that gay is a desease or a choice, both of which can be treated.
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 6:20 am EST

report this comment


It always amazes me how many people claim to know what god would or would not do. Mighty presumptuous isn't it?
-- Posted by Bandit None on Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 12:46 am EST

report this comment


I will say again that I am not interested in a marriage or a civil union for myself. This is a personal choice. I am interested in human dignity, social justice and fairness. Even my limited knowledge allows for the understanding of the difference between Democracy and mob rule. It is really a very simple issue. This is a problem that I could have solved in the first grade, but then, my parents didn't work hard to instill blind, narrow minded prejudice in me. I guess I'm lucky.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 10:53 pm EST

report this comment


Comfy....for the same reason you don't want to put gay marriage up to a popular vote. Why do you continually insist on calling it a marriage rather than just asking that any discrepancies in the civil union law be corrected? I already know thw answer, you're looking for validation. "Hey dad look I'm married...er, no grandkids aren't in your future."
-- Posted by ex-vermonter None on Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 8:10 pm EST

report this comment


That was not an answer, that was the runaround. The answer to my question would consist of yes or no. It was a very simple question.
I don't even have any desire to respond to the incorrect and twisted nonsense that you just spewed in lieu of an answer.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 6:37 pm EST

report this comment


http://www.vtmarriage.org/html/faq.htm#Q9
-- Posted by NONENONE ONE on Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 5:01 pm EST

report this comment


"Please re read my post, I was not answering a question, I was asking a question. So far all I am seeing in response are people who are trying to avoid giving a straight answer. I wonder why....well, not really.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 3:59 pm EST "


I'll be more than happy to answer your question. your question was...

"When are all of the straight married couples who say that a CU is just as good going to step up to the plate and trade their marriages for civil unions?

-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 1:02 pm EST "


Married Heterosexuals do not have to step up to the plate. They have engaged in Holy Matrimony as they have done for centuries. Heterosexual marriage consists of two genders and the guaranteed possibility that they they can create and give birth to children (Not including the poor folk who ar emedically unable to do so). The Religious side of the Ceremony is blessed by God and the governmental side of the marriage is to guarantee the WIFE will not just be a baby maker but will have equal say as the husband. The laws provide guarantees that is one or the other shall die, then they will be taken care of and they will continue to be able to provide for their siblings. The laws also provide the name that the woman will now be liable for.

Gays have not been included in marriage because God will notbless a gay Marriage. There is no chance that they can create and have a natural child birth by the married partner. There is no Husband and no Wife and therefore no laws are necessary to insure the wife will nothing more than a baby maker. That would be rather impossible in a gay marrigae, now wouldn't it?

So you see Comfy, under the eyes of God and under the eye of the Laws imposed by Government, heterosexuals have a Marriage and seeing how gays can not execute the same results as a heterosexual couple, they are not entitled to a Marriage and they should be very thankful that Vermont was lenient enough to create Civil Unions to accept their deviant life styles.
-- Posted by None None on Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 4:21 pm EST

report this comment


Please re read my post, I was not answering a question, I was asking a question. So far all I am seeing in response are people who are trying to avoid giving a straight answer. I wonder why....well, not really.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 3:59 pm EST

report this comment


When are all of the straight married couples who say that a CU is just as good going to step up to the plate and trade their marriages for civil unions?

-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 1:02 pm EST

Comfy - may I call you Comfy? You answer my question with another canned outburst. I ask you and other supporters which right or rights are are you being deprived? If all you want is a label say so. If what you really want is an affirmation of your lifestyle then say that. At that point we can begin a real disccussion.
-- Posted by Don Wood on Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 2:15 pm EST

report this comment


When are all of the straight married couples who say that a CU is just as good going to step up to the plate and trade their marriages for civil unions?
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 1:02 pm EST

report this comment


Judy Olinick,

Your assertions are preposturous!

First, "civil" and "fundamental" are not the same thing, and what you describe are "fundamental" rights. These "fundamental" rights exist for your children already, so stop trying to enforce the normalization process you have gone through with your children on the rest of us.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never come close to examining this issue and declaring the rights of gays to marry each other a "civil" or "fundamental" right. Marriage laws already apply equally, whethter Denise Johnson thinks so or not!

Second, gays are not a "specific minority" as you assert. Again, the USSC has never declared homosexuality a "suspect class" entitled to special legal protections.

As for the "no more powerful right" in this country, I can cite and think of at least one...my right to voice my objection of this policy based on my 1st Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of religion. On what basis of the U.S. Constitution do you base your assertions?

Further, the objection of this policy and your subsequent support illustrates why objecting is so important...because the purveyors of lies like yourself believe there's a magical right to gay marriage that should trump my right to object. That it exactly what follows when you grant these rights...my 1st Amendment Rights will almost certainly be infringed...and will be applauded by people like you!

You are dangerous!
-- Posted by Kevin Blier on Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 12:07 pm EST

report this comment


What "civil Right" is being denied? The right to apply a lable "Marriage" to a relationship or the right to have a lifestyle affirmed? Please let me know. In either case, as far as I know, no additional benefits will accrue to the individuals that do not already exist under civil unions

Is this so called gay marriage law going to limit such marriages to just between two gays or lesbians? That's discrimination.
-- Posted by Don Wood on Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 10:24 am EST

report this comment


Marriage is a religious institution. The government has found a benifit in the licensing and regulation of this religious institution. Since there is nothing in the constitution or bill of rights about marriage, all government involvement in marriage could theoreticaly be deemed unconstitutional. All anyone would have to do at that point would be to find a religion that supports their belief. Laws would still need to protect the well being of minors and farm animals. Would this not be more "equal"?
Just a thought.
-- Posted by ANDREW CHAPLEAU on Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 7:27 am EST

report this comment


sure just what i want a peanut butter and peanut butter sandwich. DUH!!!
-- Posted by m e on Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 8:01 pm EST

report this comment


"Please explain how Marriage is a Civil Right?"

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,'"

Those quotations are from Loving v Virginia. But perhaps you think you know better about civil rights than the Supreme Court?
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 6:47 pm EST

report this comment


Marriage is more of a Religious Tradition than it is a Government and it most certainly is not a Right, no matter how you look at it.
Marriage is neither a privilege nor a right but a tradition created for one man and one woman, it isn't between two males or two females, for all the oaths of marriage mention Man and wife as well as Bride and groom.
You can't join the VFW unless you are a veteran of a foreign war and I suppose you have a civil right to join?
Even the Right to free speech has restrictions, try yelling FIRE in a crowded theater when there isn't one.
Girls can not be a Boy Scout nor can a Boy be a Girl Scout, but I guess you all want to challenge that as well.

Please explain how Marriage is a Civil Right?

Marriage is a membership by one man and open woman, period.
-- Posted by None None on Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 5:11 pm EST

report this comment


See kevin, even gonzo gets it. Their sex has nothing to do with it. Its what they want to call their union. And Dwayne, you should know by now that it wont stop untill they get their way. Was that Kevins foot I heard being stomped again.
-- Posted by NONENONE ONE on Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 3:43 pm EST

report this comment


One tract mind? More than one. I own a few. I've also written a few.

Fact: Mormons were the single largest contributor to the Prop 8 campaign in CA.
They were instrumental in opposing marriage equality in Hawaii.
They always stick their noses into other people's business, apparently, especially on the issue of marriage.
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 3:22 pm EST

report this comment


True, marriage may be a tradition. But when it allows adam and eve to get benefits that adam and steve or eve and yvette cant then that is wrong. That is judging someone solely on the way they have sex. Which is None of your business.
-- Posted by None None on Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 2:39 pm EST

report this comment


Because it is a tradition and not a right, silly.

-- Posted by NONENONE ONE

WOW!! This is the best post I have seen in two months!!!!!

Holy Cow!!! Pretty much sums up the entire shabang.
-- Posted by Dr. Gonzo on Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 2:29 pm EST

report this comment


Didn't we put this to a vote once before? Oh ya we did and it got shot down! Then Howard Dean in all of his brilliance decides to backdoor it so we couldn't vote and pass it through anyways. I wonder how things would turn out if we voted again? Kind of like California I think!
-- Posted by Dwayne Johnson on Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 1:44 pm EST

report this comment


Now Mormons' are a dirty word along with republican. Kevin only accepts "gay" as acceptable. One tract mind that guy. You go guy. Stamp that foot again!
-- Posted by NONENONE ONE on Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 12:30 pm EST

report this comment


I agree witth Judy that the sandwich analogy doesn't work. How can you have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with just peanut butter and jelly? The bread, perhaps the most important component of a sandwich, isn't even mentioned! How can you have a pb & j sandwich without the bread? I rest my case.
-- Posted by Mr. Moderate on Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 12:16 pm EST

report this comment


Joe, dear, it wasn't Connie who thought up the silly sandwich analogy, or perhaps you didn't read her letter carefully. It was Aaron Melville, a VT "Young Republican" who also happens to be a Mormon.
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 11:13 am EST

report this comment


Judy, do your best with that thought. I believe they refused to hear the case although I could be wrong. I hope it does go before them, problem solved right. Wrong again. If they say no, gays will still be all over it just like the Defense of Marriage Act of Sept. 1996. That passed the senate (85-14) and the house (342-67). Considering the makeup of congress those numbers are bad for gays. So the only way for gays to be happy is for everyone to abanden their own beliefs and views and give in to you. That is no P B & J.
-- Posted by NONENONE ONE on Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 10:14 am EST

report this comment


State and federal laws, 33 states, acording to one person, has passed legislation indicating marriage is between one man and one woman. Just a couple more and any rights issue is mute in any other state. That argument of yours just won't float in most states and wouldn't here either if put to the vote. It is not a rights issue, the majority of the United States said so as have all the elite lawyers known to mankind. People have been bending over backwards to ensure your rights and you keep sticking it to them. The majority in this country have allready spoken. Your deviant behavior cannot be legislated into being accepted or normal. And its still illegal in this state.
-- Posted by NONENONE ONE on Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 9:53 am EST

report this comment


Melville's sandwich analogy was absurd to begin with. The many good variations on the theme by marriage supporters only strengthen the argument for equality.
Of course marriage is a civil right. If you don't think so, just ask under what conditions or for what reasons a civil marriage license could be denied to a heterosexual couple (or revoked) as long as both had attained the minimum age, neither was legally married to someone else and they were not close blood relatives. Beyond that there is not a single requirement for marriage. There IS no more powerful civil right in this country. The state, a secular institution, has no defensible grounds for denying this right to a specific minority on the basis of gender. If the question has to go to the Supreme Court, there is little doubt what the outcome will be. But I hope it won't be necessary.
-- Posted by Judy Olinick on Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 9:52 am EST

report this comment


There is no correlation here.........a sandwinch and marriage lmao
Connie u are a couple chicken sandwinches shy of a picnic basket !!!
-- Posted by Joe Shaw on Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 9:32 am EST

report this comment


vermont legislators should spend money on important issues like homeless vermonters and food programs and things of that nature
-- Posted by mary white on Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 9:18 am EST

report this comment


Once the government regulates and offers something to its citizens, it is literally a civil right. The fact that it may have begun as a "tradition" (and in fact, marriage began as a governmental means of controlling property, not in any church) is irrelevant. Democracy is a "tradition," too -- one codified in our state and federal laws So is equal protection under the law. So until all citizens have access to the same rights, civil rights are being violated.
-- Posted by None None on Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 9:13 am EST

report this comment


Because it is a tradition and not a right, silly.
-- Posted by NONENONE ONE on Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 8:16 am EST

report this comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout